Level of discourse: how we can be more effective (and, systemd)

[jd1008]

On 09/23/2014 07:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>> Let's decide that before we argue any more on the merits--or lack
>> thereof--of systemd itself. If it's not going to change Red Hat's decision,
>> then all we can meaningfully discuss here are discovered issues and any
>> resolutions of same with the current implementation of systemd.
> I'm breaking this into a new thread because, as you say, it's a separate
> topic, and because it deserves a fresh start of its own.
>
> Dave, thank you for your thoughtful response. If every thread about systemd
> were at this level of civility, we wouldn't have a problem. But, clearly,
> that's not what happens. In fact, these threads continually and quickly
> devolve into personal attacks, name calling, and all manner of nastiness.
>
> This is harmful to Fedora. It makes this list a bad place to get help with
> real issues. It makes it a scary place for new users. It makes it a
> miserable place for active developers and contributors. It doesn't just
> increase the noise: over time, it reduces the signal.
>
> And, it's not just by driving away helpful people. When the thread has been
> reduced to a mud-fight, it means that I can't use it as meaningful evidence.
> That's part of my job inside of Red Hat. I _want_ to be able to say "Fedora
> users are really indicating that we're going to have a problem with this
> direction. Take a look — we need to put resources into fixing this." But, if
> someone does look, they'll see that we're mostly busy calling each other
> fascists,
But the person who adopted the stance of a censor is what prompted
the name calling. Effectively, telling people "THIS IS NOT THE PLATFORM
OR THE LIST FOR YOU TO SPOUT LIKE THAT"
is exactly what prompted the response with the word fascist.
I think redhat or the moderators are simply getting out of line
trying to shut up someone for criticizing the direction Fedora is
taking. If the list is ONLY for people to seek help with problems
resolution, THEN, PLEASE STATE SO IN THE PURPOSE OF THIS LIST -
and include in that statement, that discussions. critiques, about the 
directions,
or mis-directions, Redhat is taking Fedora to, are not allowed.
That would pretty much solve the problem as envisaged by the censors
and perhaps, by Redhat!
Truth of the matter is, Fedora is owned as much by the developers, perhaps
thousands of them, who give their incredibly valuable time and effort in
providing fedora, and I seriously doubt that Redhat, or the  censors can
act in a manner as if dissent and disagreement with the direction is
forbidden. Were the thousands of developers polled that the censors of
the list ought to adopt such a stance? Were the millions of users?
Where would Fedora be without the millions of users?
It would have died a quiet death! So, redhat owes a great debt of gratitude
to all users and critics.

> proposing outlandish theories about GPL violation, willfully
> misunderstanding each other in order to score Internet argument points, and
> so on.
>
> That does not carry any weight. In fact, if I were to try that, I would soon
> find my own ability to convince anyone to listen to anything in Fedora
> vanish. And that's not me just talking to Red Hat — it's the same thing
> talking to basically _anyone_ who has any ability to do anything.
>
> Let's help ourselves be heard by keeping the discourse at a constructive
> level.
>
> It doesn't have to be all about technical issues. We can talk about more
> than just code. But, for code and everything else, let's not go in circles.
> Repetition might work for propaganda, but it's not going to change Fedora
> decision-making. There's actually very little here that isn't
> well-understood all throughout Fedora engineering leadership — and, really,
> I don't feel out of line in saying that I'm sure Red Hat leadership
> understands the picture very well too. (Nothing's perfect; you make the best
> decisions you can.) When there's something important that we can say that
> _isn't_ understood or is otherwise urgent, I want that to stand out — not to
> be piled under eight tons of muck.
>
> Someone may be about to argue that those tons of muck must indicate that
> people are unhappy, and therefore should be listened to. I've heard that
> before. Let me ask: is it working? I assure you, it's not — and _more muck_
> isn't going to help.
>
> I'm not interested in stopping discussion of systemd. In fact, we'll need to
> talk about it a lot more, because it is (and always was) an enabling
> technology, not a simple replacement for init. But please, please, please,
> let's do it like a community actually working together to make cool stuff.
> If we don't, all that will happen is that this list will become completely
> irrelevant. I don't want that to happen, and that's why I'm taking a
> stronger stance on this.
>
>